Rejecting evolutionism and a proper apologetics

I’m new to this forum. But two threads have caught my attention: Rejecting evolution does not equal rejecting science and Evolutionary Creationists Apologetics. They present the direction which in my opinion is very important, but neglected. @Patrick_S puts the subject too mildly and imprecise, which allows for easy attack on his otherwise correct thesis. We need to use proper terms to be properly understood.
Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring
Evolutionism is a term used to denote the theory of evolution.

The evolution of species is a fact. Denying it is denying reality. Evolutionism (the Darwin’s theory) is a fake. Denying it is a step towards rational reasoning. There is a qualitative leap between evolution (of species) and evolutionism, which cannot be reasonably justified. The more we know, the more clear it is. But the inaccurate terms used, allow to defend evolutionism in a way, which is in fact defending the evolution of species. And we see examples in this thread.

Anyway, showing the fact, that evolutionism is unscientific, is as easy, as showing that economics (the queen of so called ‘social sciences’) is not a science. And we have many more examples of the ideological biases in our modern world. Their common denominator is the post-Enlightenment materialistic worldview. As Patrick correctly pointed, evolutionism is useless in any real science. But it is indispensable in defending the materialistic worldview. Ideology needs it. And here we get to the @NickolaosPappas thread. I agree, that we need a true, modern apologetics. Not only an answer to Darwinism. Real apologetics is simply a true, reasonable explanation of reality. Free from ideological biases. It is doable.

The question is: how to do it properly? Where to start? I think, first we should get rid of the false sciences standing on guard of the post-Enlightenment worldview, then clean up the real sciences from the fake theories like evolutionism. Don’t you agree?

Please, be patient and excuse me, my usual not so prompt responding. I prefer giving answers after some period for reflection.

I see, my post provoked many of you to continue your discussions started elsewhere. As a result there are only 4 replays to my original post. At least, according to biologos engine. I will not interfere with the off-topic discussions. I want to stay on topic. Moreover, I want to stay on topic objectively, reasonably and logically. Scientifically. And this requires some rigor. Discipline in thinking and expressing one’s thoughts.

Unfortunately, we have to. You see, to be rigorous and logical, to be able to build theories describing the laws of the universe, we have to use the language more strict than the common one. Logic, mathematics and science are built on such language. For example, consider this:

How to discuss with something like that? “Science is not some objective reality”. “Science is determined by consensus”. If it would be true, we would have stayed with the consensus that the Earth is flat. This definition is a nonsense.
Another example is the inability to see the difference between the evolution of species and evolutionism (the Darwin’s theory). I’ve assumed that most people here understand this difference. I was wrong. It needs to be explained. Someone here gave a pretty good explanation:
Evolutionism is a naturalist ideology concerned with how things came to be and still do”.
Yes. That’s the point. “how things came to be”. That’s what I called “a qualitative leap between evolution (of species) and evolutionism”. Biological species (sometimes) evolve. Some of them change to adapt to changes in their environment. Why “sometimes” and “some”? Because we have many different kinds of dogs. They evolve very easily. While the great white shark and many other sharks, turtles, etc have not changed for millions or even hundreds of millions of years. Intriguing, isn’t it?
The fact that we can see species adapting to environment, does not allow us to say: “This is how species emerged on Earth”. The more we know, the more problems with this claim we find.

  • The organisms that fit best any environment are tardigrades. They are the fittest. They are the answer to environmental conditions. Anything more complex is less fit.
  • Evolution (as Darwinists understand it) cannot just stop, as it happened in case of sharks. It HAS TO BE a continuous process.
  • Some of the irreducible complexity examples are unsolvable using random changes. At least, in such a short time as the age of the universe.

If we would find any object moving faster than light in (let’s call it so) normal circumstances, the Einstein’s theory would be falsified. One example of contradiction is enough. That’s how science works.
Will we be able to move to the apologetics part, now?

1 Like

Hi Patrick.

[quote=“philosopher4hire, post:1, topic:44800”]

In my experience, evolutionism is used by creationists to throw shade on people who don’t share their creationist beliefs and imply that acceptance of mainstream science equates to embracing a false religion.

What do you think “evolutionism” means and what does it mean to “get rid of it.”

People who insist all scientists who make profitable use of the theory of evolution in their scientific work are subscribing to a materialistic ideology on par with a religion are not representing reality correctly and are just speaking out of their own biases and misconceptions.

1 Like

Hi Christy. Not all scientists but a good majority does this if we take in consideration the statistics

I’m pretty sure this isn’t “Patrick in disguise”, Beaglelady. Just based on stuff mods can see. Besides, would you ever catch Patrick conceding:

If that were so, then Patrick’s views would indeed be evolving.

But as it is, 4hire should probably give answer to Christy’s question about just what he’s trying to do with “evolutionism” because her observations about its typical use are grounded in quite a lot of reality. So feel free to reflect on that and reply in your own good time.

I also challenge your statement:

That sort of claim is the red flag of certainty that the speaker is more tightly hide-bound by unexamined ideologies than perhaps everybody else present. Because it essentially says: “I have not taken any time to reflect on or examine my own ideological biases, because I’m too busy denying I have any - and why would I reflect on something that I deny even exists?” Which virtually guarantees to everybody else listening that you are more ideologically driven than ever.


Well @Christy . I do not want to deal with your experiences about evolutionism. I’ve just used 2 citations from wiki, which came up when I put “evolutionism” into duckduckgo. They seemed reasonable to me.

And “get rid of it.” means: abandon it. Just like we’d abandoned the false theory of phlogiston. Nothing unusual in science.

All the scientifically profitable usage is linked to evolution of species. Not the Darwin’s theory. They are not the same.

You may think like that. What can I do about people’s prejudices?

You’ve missed out an important part of the quote here. Evolutionism is a term used (often derogatorily) to denote the theory of evolution.

In modern usage, the term “evolutionism” is used by YECs to refer to anything and everything about science that they don’t like, even if it doesn’t have anything to do with biological evolution whatsoever. You’ll sometimes see them referring to “evolutionist” models of the Earth’s magnetic field, or “evolutionist” measurements of the amount of salt in the sea for example.

It is their way of claiming to be pro-science while being anti-science in reality. They just redefine science to mean the bits that they like, while redefining the bits that they don’t as “evolutionism.”

So yes, the term “evolutionism” is unscientific. But the scientific community doesn’t use it.


Not nearly so much as you can at least try to do about being aware of your own.

1 Like

It’s not clear what distinction you’re drawing here. Contemporary evolutionary biology is of course very different from Darwin’s theory since we have learned a lot since his time. And it’s all linked to the evolution of species, of course. What’s not clear is whether you understand that much scientifically profitable use of evolution most certainly depends on common descent, including (say), the common ancestry of humans and hippos.

I don’t think you know what you are talking about here, and I don’t think the vast majority of Christians in the sciences would concede this point at all.

“In modern usage, the term “evolutionism” is used by YECs to…” - James McKay

What about all of the non-YECists who use that term too? Have you written up an article on them from your research yet or are their reasons not elaborated so far? As a non-YECist, I use the “evolutionism” to identify the ideology, and carefully distinguish it from the various evolutionary theories available across a range of natural and social sciences, as well as the humanities.

What BioLogos says: “while we accept the scientific evidence for evolution, BioLogos emphatically rejects [e]volutionism, the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discussion. Evolutionism is a kind of scientism, which holds that all of reality can in principle be explained by science.”

The definition given above is satisfactory, but minimal. It doesn’t help, however, in distinguishing beteween “scientific evolutionary theories” and “ideological evolution”.

Likewise, “theistic evolutionism” is obviously not an “atheist worldview.” If BioLogos could willingly choose the term “ideology” to describe “evolutionism”, instead of “worldview” (close, but not enough), further progress from the conversation Darrel and I could ensure.

From a longer article:

"In what follows I propose a way out of the rift caused by fear, confusion, and ignorance between Christians and their critics, namely, the warfare of creationism and evolutionism. As it happens, not knowing better, in fact ignoring their own tradition, many Christians are convinced that their task is to uphold creationism, in whose name all things scientific should be discarded as useless and blasphemous. Likewise, not knowing better, in fact ignoring the scientific principles which supposedly guide them, critics reject Christianity as anachronistic and useless, being convinced that their task is to uphold evolutionism. I focus on this conflictual situation because of its emblematic character. Indeed, this conflict is the clearest illustration of the chronic fear and confusion that paralyse our culture. Here is how I propose that this obstacle be overcome, through discernment, awareness, and clarification.

Against the confused views of our time, creation and creationism are not the same. Similarly, evolution and evolutionism are not the same. Christian and secularist fundamentalists alike seem unable to discern what truly belongs to them. Christians do not believe in creationism; they believe in creation. Scientists do not believe in evolutionism; they believe in evolution. I hope that you will not rush to accuse me of complicating the situation with semantics! Let me explain."

Yes, and we would undoubtedly disagree on who constitutes an “evolutionist.”

“People who insist all scientists who make profitable use of the theory of evolution in their scientific work are subscribing to a materialistic ideology on par with a religion are not representing reality correctly and are just speaking out of their own biases and misconceptions.”

Agreed, except for there’s more than one “theory of evolution”. In this, I agree also with Pope John Paul II, “rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution.”

Well put! That is the clearest statement I have read on the term recently. Thanks

““evolutionism” is unscientific.”

Yes, I agree. Yet this is only the negative side; what evolutionism is not. What’s the positive side?

One example: “evolutionism is ideology”.

I’m very curious: would you suggest another positive side term?

"In turn, creationism is a supernaturalist ideology which unscripturally, untraditionally, and untheologically concerns itself with how things have been and are made. The customary creationist answer to the question how things have been and are made is that God made and makes everything by the greatness of his power, regardless of the natural potential of the created universe. Interestingly, creationism’s concern corresponds to the evolutionist question. Evolutionism is a naturalist ideology concerned with how things came to be and still do, the explanation provided referring to the natural potential of the universe and life, regardless of the divine energy which permeates everything. But, as much as creationism differs from the doctrine of creation, so much does evolutionism differ from the theory of evolution. The latter is a scientific description of reality concerned with what happened in the past and what unfolds in the present concerning the universe and everything within it, including life. Evolution means movement and change, a natural phenomenon which does not require the naturalist dogma of evolutionism." -

Dear @jammycakes,
I totally agree with you! the term “evolutionism” is unscientific. As it denotes a false theory.
And yes, I use it derogatorily. As it denotes a false theory.
All the rest is just complains about other people’s behavior. Perhaps, they are as you paint them. But don’t blame me for it, please.
BTW, on my display it is:

Evolutionism - Wikipedia

Evolutionism is a term used to denote the theory of evolution. Its exact meaning has changed over time as the study of evolution has progressed. In the 19th century, it was used to describe the

My view is that “evolutionists” are defined as “those who promote the ideology of evolutionism”. In what way(s) do you “undoubtedly disagree” with that?

What you mention is compatible with the Intelligent Project theory, for example. Which seems harder to falsify, BTW.
I’m not able to answer the question of: how could it happen, that we see the biosphere, as we see it. But it is easy to show that Darwin’s theory (random changes + survival of the fittest) is wrong.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.